Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA11100 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:05:20 GMT Message-Id: <200002171759.MAA29752@mail5.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 12:07:31 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #130 In-reply-to: <00021716531401.00639@faichney> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: Robin Faichney <robin@faichney.demon.co.uk>
Organization: Reborn Technology
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: memetics-digest V1 #130
Date sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:50:44 +0000
Send reply to: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> Cutting (off) to the chase, here...
>
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Soc Microlab 2 wrote:
> <big snip>
> >As I say chapters 12-14 of Darwin's Dangerous Idea are probably the best explanation of Dennett's view on
> >this, but if you didn't have much time you could get an idea from the sub-chapter "could there be a science
> >of memetics?" pp. 352-360. This quote should count as evidence that Dennett thinks memetics is about
> >meaning: (from DDI p. 353-4)
> >
> >"what is preserved and transmitted in cultural evolution is *information* - in a media-neutral,
> >language-neutral sense. Thus the meme is primarily a *semantic* classification, not a *syntactic*
> >classification that might be directly observable in "brain language" or natural language."
>
> What he's saying here is that the meme is encoded, not straight physical
> information. The encoding can, and does, vary, but the encoded message remains
> the same. No?
>
Yes, this is true. The coding is the syntax, and coding schemes
may be studied structurally, without reference to meaning, kinda
like the relations between algebraic variables may be studied
independent of them being assigned specific quantities, as long as
they are abstracted from any particular message. The message,
however, is semantic, and cannot be so studied, nor can it be
denied that the purpose of a message (why we send them) is to
convey meaning, and that just as all memes must be coded in
some way, all memes must also contain a message, although the
message content does not determine the choice of coding
scheme, or vice-versa. If one is to study memetics in its totality
and propose an ontology, however, these components cannot be
considered in isolation; sender, receiver, carrier, code, message,
referent must all be considered, as well as their interrelations. The
reductionistic fallacy of isolating these is akin to the Buddha's
ancient reductionistic error of subdividing the self and concluding,
after failing to find the self in any of the components, that there was
therefore no self in the aggregate whole. Of course, if you
deconstruct a system into its component parts, you destroy the
complex and dynamic recursive interrelations from which self may
emerge; it's kinda like demolishing a building and studying it brick
by brick to ascertain that there were never walls or ceiling.
> --
> Robin Faichney
>
>
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 17 2000 - 18:05:23 GMT